[cgl_discussion] Fw: [announce] linux-2.5.51-dcl1

Skip Ford skip.ford at verizon.net
Tue Dec 10 21:45:55 PST 2002

Sousou, Imad wrote:
> i'm glad that you are happy Mika, but I it would nice to clarify to people
> that the so called CGL tree have absolutely NOTHING to do with the CGL
> Working Group, or its members; and its not sanctioned, supported, nor
> sponsored by the CGL Working Group... I realize that people are free to do
> whatever the heck they want, but I wish you would use a name that wouldn't
> confuse people between the OSDL "CGL tree" and the CGL Working group and its
> members.

I couldn't agree more.  One thing I've noticed as I'm trying to learn
about OSDL, CGL, DCL, and all the features/patch sets is you guys are
using generic names for everything.  I mentioned before that what you
call features are really names of patches of implementations of

You're doing the same thing with names of trees.  What happens when
10 different groups release their own carrier-grade trees all based
on the requirements of the CGL Working Group but with different code?
What would make your tree anymore "cgl" than the other 9 trees?

The more trees we have the better so Stephen and Randy are doing a good
thing but I think their trees are named incorrectly.  By saying here is
_the_ cgl tree, you're really saying don't bother with CG work unless
it's with us because we have _the_ tree.

Rusty's tree s/b named -rl and Stephen's -sh.  And instead of saying
"_the_ cgl tree" and "_the_ dcl tree" you should say "_a_ cgl tree..."


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list